Posted on 06/28/2005 7:50:00 AM PDT by MikeEdwards
For those of you who thought that The Bill of Rights enshrined a series of 10 basic human rights, think again. On June 23 the Supreme Court of the United States in a split landmark ruling decided that the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution didn’t really guarantee the citizens the right not to be deprived of their private property without just compensation. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer all found that what the founders of the nation really meant by the Fifth Amendment was that you were guaranteed the right not to have your private property seized under Eminent Domain without just compensation, unless the government saw that it could generate more tax money by kicking you off your land and selling it to a developer.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The liberal block on the ct obviously want to help their failing liberal big city governments.
Since the constituents of these cities continue to vote for those who keep them in squalor decade after decade.
"...it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government…
A good place to start might be with the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer."
Amen, brother. Where do I sign?
Suggestion: Why don't all of us contact our representatives and demand impeachment of those justices? Look up your representatives at http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/home/ and send them a message demanding impeachment.
This is the most blatant case of "judicial legislation" in quite a while.
Since the founding, it was illegal for the government to take your property for no reason beyond the fiscal value it posed to them, but now, it is legal.
There is no legislation to this effect. No change to the constitution. Just a 5-4 vote on the supreme court to make it law.
King George would be proud.
Had he realized he could have given us the right to vote, the right to own property, free speech, etc... and then simply had his judges decide what was right and wrong, he might have granted us the constitution and the rights we fought for.
Kennedy says the First Amendment "could not be more clear" in its declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
"These Ten Commandments displays are not laws -- they clearly have no legal force," he argued. "They are not a religion. There is no 'Ten Commandments' religion. In fact, the Ten Commandments are revered and followed by at least two religions -- Judaism and Christianity. And, finally, a mere display of the Ten Commandments does not 'establish' a religion."
The displays, however, acknowledge God, he said, which is a foundation of the United States.
"Our nation came into being because we acknowledged God," he said. "Independence, the founders said, was something to which they were entitled by 'the laws of nature and of nature's God.' Without the public acknowledgement of God, who is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence, America would not exist."
Kennedy argued further that the "inalienable rights" with which American citizens are endowed, are guaranteed in the Ten Commandments.
"The right of private property, gravely injured last week by the high court, is guaranteed in the eighth commandment which states, 'Thou shalt not steal,'" Kennedy explained.
WHAT? DOES HE NOT REMEMBER THAT HE CAST THE SWING VOTE ON THAT "GRAVE INJURY"??? WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? DID HE REALLY SAY THIS?
Or proof of gross incompetence, maybe. He should be called upon to publically explain his apparent reversal, maybe he "erred" in his earlier vote...or was miscounted?...who counts the votes? Ginsberg or Souter...? Geeeese.
I refuse to comment on this topic with my personal remedy, as the owner of this site and his Mods would either pull my comment or ban me.
And Stalin would be jealous.
I think it would be amusing if we reverted some of the leftist elites estates in Colorado/California back to "public use" as park land, for pennies on the dollar of course.
Remember a few months ago when some power company determined that Cape Cod would be an optimum place for a wind farm? It was resisted by Teddy and other wealthy landowners because it would affect their views of the ocean? Now...what land use would be the greater good, Teddy? Reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Or retaining your pristine view of the ocean?
"Lost Liberty Hotel" proposed on Justice Souter's land
Hilarious.
Wrong Kennedy! Quote in WND article was from "Evangelical Christian activist D. James Kennedy". Guess I am too worked up about this whole issue to read thouroughly. Stupid mistake. My apologies.
I think even King John would have been proud of this one.
The Supreme Court justices are in a fecal position.
It's better to take the Fifth, one ounce at a time.
Great article. This demonstrates a foreign columnist's perspective which realizes the blatant attempt of our activism shaping the Constitution to fit their personal preferences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.